What have we seen so far besides over-the-top posturing and positioning. And the owners now seem to want a 10-year deal or nothing.

Collective bargaining usually takes place between a union and a particular employer. In sports we have dozens of individual employers acting in a way that limits actual bargaining. Note that the last time games were missed the lockout ended when the owners started to speak from the different perspectives that they actually have. There is not going to be any structuring that benefits them all, unless they in fact break the union, or fracture it. A 10-year deal would let them all surf on dough for a little while. But it's still short-sighted for a good number of owners that really are going to need more than just a bigger slice of the pie, and it's a shame that the weaker franchises are getting strung along as much as anyone. I would be very surprised if the stronger franchises give up anything. They will be quite happy to continue to feed off the weaker teams and make greater profits, as well as take some more from the players.

This is nothing at all like the auto makers where real bargaining with one company leads to deals with the others. It's a very different dynamic, and I think it's much more cynical, with so many interests getting herded only when it starts to hurt the weaker parties on each side. If you look at the most successful owners and the richest players you have two parties that have more in common with each other than they do their much lesser counterparts. And that is why I'm looking for some medicine that helps the game as a whole and maybe offers a chance for more sugar with more franchises having the chance to run a good business within a fair structure. The two parties involved in this mess can't do much beyond drawing lines in the sand and shitting away whatever advantages a successful season might offer.